People already request groups here as far as I can see. It looks good. And we are not going to shut down the forum, right?
Currently the system with wiki pages doesn’t work well and doesn’t look good at all.
How about adding a recommendation to the docs i mentioned? It won’t be a policy.
We’ll leave that wiki pages info but will give people an alternative. or, at least, a nice addition to their “awesome and loved” wiki pages:) People, at least, be aware of this + it’ll bring more attention to the forum.
Let me submit a PR. We can close.
Later, when people get used to the forum, we can remove mentioning the wikis if there’s a support for that.
UPDATE: - We should have a group request process published somewhere to continue working on the topic
@Andersson007 for consistency until we address the governance issue (or define what levels/types of groups there are) I suggest we keep the “Working Group” name for the moment even for new groups/teams.
If we start creating new groups called “Teams”, then there will be confusion on what is what, and what’s the difference. Thinking on the Postgresql ansible team - Ansible for ex. and any new group requests.
Name: PostgreSQL
Full Name: PostgreSQL (Ansible) Working Group
To explain - The Name is used as flair, so keep it short & drop the Team part. The Ansible bit in FullName is kinda implied by being on the Ansible Forum, but the full title isn’t used in many places, so go for it if you want.
One small suggestion to @gwmngilfen full name: Maybe go with PostgresSQL Collection Working Group instead if the focus of the group is the collection, to avoid confusion with the use of PostgreSQL within Ansible itself.
I agree that we should probably be precise when naming to define the scope well (like PostgreSQL Ansible Collection … SGTM). What i can’t understand is why we should have any naming convention here?
Aren’t forum users allowed to name their communities here whatever their like (provided the scope is well reflected in its name and description)? We already have many groups named differently, see the group page.
In general I would agree with allowing flexibility - but we should just make sure we’re not allowing confusion to be created either. Certain terms can be reserved without harming self-expression, I think. I would definitely reject groups claiming to be a “Council” etc without wider agreement, and I think (as discussed) Team is quite vague as to where it sits within the wider community. As you say, the name should reflect the scope.
(NB Yes, our group is the Community Team. I know. Community Working Group was already taken, and we should have a different discussion about that )
The WG section is a sub-section of the Real time chat section but the EE group doesn’t even have a chat channel (and it’s not planned to create it) + and i wouldn’t call it WG as members don’t work on any particular project
so the questions are:
should we add the EE to the WG list anyway? (I think, as it’s a communication channel, we should; or we could just mention there something like for more teams, take a look at the forum groups page + the link behind)
I think with the forum, having a real-time chat shouldn’t be a requirement for WG or team or whatever? maybe it isn’t but it feels like it is.
should we maybe make the WG section a top level section, i.e. move it out of the Real time chat? (i think the answer depends on the previous question)
should we rename the Working Groups section to something more general like “Teams” as not all our communities are working on something?
Everyone is welcome to discuss this. I’ll specifically ping @oranod and @samccann as doc folks
In the long term, I’d like to replace that list with a link to the Groups page - each group has it’s own description page where it can detail it’s own practices, so that’s a natural place to find the groups - and if we’re successful in making the the starting point for all things community, then a group here is always going to make sense.
I think that page needs a rethink in general, as per above. We should add a link to the groups in the Forum section at the top of that page at least, and probably restructure the realtime part as well.
I would support that, I don’t think Matrix is a hard requirement now.
Groups would seem to be the obvious term to align with the usage here… would that feel ok?
)
